[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]My dad tells me that in the 1950s they didn’t eat the large steaks that we eat now. There were no double-doubles and the Big Mac was not yet invented.[/quote]

Uh-uh! Same menu since 1948!

Perhaps the double-double should be the standard measure for inflation?[/quote]

I was just thinking about that. I can’t tell you what a double-double cost back then, but I can tell you that a Big Mac meal cost me a buck in 1973, when I was in high school. Don’t eat McDonals very often these days, but I think the last time I had a big mac meal it was just under $7.00. And I’m pretty sure they were bigger 38 years ago. I think maybe the drinks and fries are bigger now.

That’s 600% inflation. According to an inflation calculator i found online, the increase in CPI over that same period 408.65%

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]My dad tells me that in the 1950s they didn’t eat the large steaks that we eat now. There were no double-doubles and the Big Mac was not yet invented.[/quote]

Uh-uh! Same menu since 1948!

Perhaps the double-double should be the standard measure for inflation?[/quote]

I was just thinking about that. I can’t tell you what a double-double cost back then, but I can tell you that a Big Mac meal cost me a buck in 1973, when I was in high school. Don’t eat McDonals very often these days, but I think the last time I had a big mac meal it was just under $7.00. And I’m pretty sure they were bigger 38 years ago. I think maybe the drinks and fries are bigger now.

That’s 600% inflation. According to an inflation calculator i found online, the increase in CPI over that same period 408.65%

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]My dad tells me that in the 1950s they didn’t eat the large steaks that we eat now. There were no double-doubles and the Big Mac was not yet invented.[/quote]

Uh-uh! Same menu since 1948!

Perhaps the double-double should be the standard measure for inflation?[/quote]

I was just thinking about that. I can’t tell you what a double-double cost back then, but I can tell you that a Big Mac meal cost me a buck in 1973, when I was in high school. Don’t eat McDonals very often these days, but I think the last time I had a big mac meal it was just under $7.00. And I’m pretty sure they were bigger 38 years ago. I think maybe the drinks and fries are bigger now.

That’s 600% inflation. According to an inflation calculator i found online, the increase in CPI over that same period 408.65%

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]My dad tells me that in the 1950s they didn’t eat the large steaks that we eat now. There were no double-doubles and the Big Mac was not yet invented.[/quote]

Uh-uh! Same menu since 1948!

Perhaps the double-double should be the standard measure for inflation?[/quote]

I was just thinking about that. I can’t tell you what a double-double cost back then, but I can tell you that a Big Mac meal cost me a buck in 1973, when I was in high school. Don’t eat McDonals very often these days, but I think the last time I had a big mac meal it was just under $7.00. And I’m pretty sure they were bigger 38 years ago. I think maybe the drinks and fries are bigger now.

That’s 600% inflation. According to an inflation calculator i found online, the increase in CPI over that same period 408.65%

[SK in CV]

I didn’t have much of a disagreement with you until this:

[quote=Djshakes]
We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.[/quote]

It is not government mandates of coverage that drove insurance costs up so much over the last 15 years. That had almost nothing to do with it. Part of it was increased technology, higher cost procedures and drugs. Part of it has been the medical providers covering unpaid services, driving their prices up. An teensy weensy part of it has been litigation costs (though I’ve seen no evidence it’s any higer now than it was 20 years ago). Part of it has been more and more reliance on employer sponsored plans, and the continued shift to first dollar coverage (which you touched on, peripherally, whether you know it or not).

There is little that can be done to eliminate the increase in technology and higher cost procedures. We want solutions to our health care problems. We want to be cured. Research costs big bucks. MRI’s cost more than CT scans, which cost more than xrays. And MRI’s save lives that xrays can’t. So we either pay the additional costs for MRI’s (and future even more expensive imaging technologies) or we accept that xrays is all we can pay for and some people will die because of it. (None of this is to say that MRI’s aren’t ever over used. They are, because they are more profitable.)

The overuse of medical services, which in part is encouraged, or at least allowed, with first dollar coverage, can be fixed by shifting away from both employer sponsored insurance and at the same time, to old fashion deductible plans. Then everyone will choose what kind of plan they want, and directly feel the cost of those plans.

The reason I disagree with the quoted section, is that the free market doesn’t work. It has failed us miserably over the last 20 years. What has happened over the last 20 years is that insurance companies, despite competing with each other, have kept more and more of each premium dollar, not less. It isn’t all of the increases. But it is a significant piece. Medical loss ratios used to float above 90%. Now they’re often under 80%. That difference is all profit for the insurance companies. No other common type of insurance has ratios that low.

The system is irreparably broken. It needs to be fixed. I don’t think the new law will fix it. But it is a step in the right direction, by at least setting a floor for insurance company medical loss ratios. There are other and better solutions. For the moment, none are politically palatable.

[SK in CV]

I didn’t have much of a disagreement with you until this:

[quote=Djshakes]
We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.[/quote]

It is not government mandates of coverage that drove insurance costs up so much over the last 15 years. That had almost nothing to do with it. Part of it was increased technology, higher cost procedures and drugs. Part of it has been the medical providers covering unpaid services, driving their prices up. An teensy weensy part of it has been litigation costs (though I’ve seen no evidence it’s any higer now than it was 20 years ago). Part of it has been more and more reliance on employer sponsored plans, and the continued shift to first dollar coverage (which you touched on, peripherally, whether you know it or not).

There is little that can be done to eliminate the increase in technology and higher cost procedures. We want solutions to our health care problems. We want to be cured. Research costs big bucks. MRI’s cost more than CT scans, which cost more than xrays. And MRI’s save lives that xrays can’t. So we either pay the additional costs for MRI’s (and future even more expensive imaging technologies) or we accept that xrays is all we can pay for and some people will die because of it. (None of this is to say that MRI’s aren’t ever over used. They are, because they are more profitable.)

The overuse of medical services, which in part is encouraged, or at least allowed, with first dollar coverage, can be fixed by shifting away from both employer sponsored insurance and at the same time, to old fashion deductible plans. Then everyone will choose what kind of plan they want, and directly feel the cost of those plans.

The reason I disagree with the quoted section, is that the free market doesn’t work. It has failed us miserably over the last 20 years. What has happened over the last 20 years is that insurance companies, despite competing with each other, have kept more and more of each premium dollar, not less. It isn’t all of the increases. But it is a significant piece. Medical loss ratios used to float above 90%. Now they’re often under 80%. That difference is all profit for the insurance companies. No other common type of insurance has ratios that low.

The system is irreparably broken. It needs to be fixed. I don’t think the new law will fix it. But it is a step in the right direction, by at least setting a floor for insurance company medical loss ratios. There are other and better solutions. For the moment, none are politically palatable.

[SK in CV]

I didn’t have much of a disagreement with you until this:

[quote=Djshakes]
We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.[/quote]

It is not government mandates of coverage that drove insurance costs up so much over the last 15 years. That had almost nothing to do with it. Part of it was increased technology, higher cost procedures and drugs. Part of it has been the medical providers covering unpaid services, driving their prices up. An teensy weensy part of it has been litigation costs (though I’ve seen no evidence it’s any higer now than it was 20 years ago). Part of it has been more and more reliance on employer sponsored plans, and the continued shift to first dollar coverage (which you touched on, peripherally, whether you know it or not).

There is little that can be done to eliminate the increase in technology and higher cost procedures. We want solutions to our health care problems. We want to be cured. Research costs big bucks. MRI’s cost more than CT scans, which cost more than xrays. And MRI’s save lives that xrays can’t. So we either pay the additional costs for MRI’s (and future even more expensive imaging technologies) or we accept that xrays is all we can pay for and some people will die because of it. (None of this is to say that MRI’s aren’t ever over used. They are, because they are more profitable.)

The overuse of medical services, which in part is encouraged, or at least allowed, with first dollar coverage, can be fixed by shifting away from both employer sponsored insurance and at the same time, to old fashion deductible plans. Then everyone will choose what kind of plan they want, and directly feel the cost of those plans.

The reason I disagree with the quoted section, is that the free market doesn’t work. It has failed us miserably over the last 20 years. What has happened over the last 20 years is that insurance companies, despite competing with each other, have kept more and more of each premium dollar, not less. It isn’t all of the increases. But it is a significant piece. Medical loss ratios used to float above 90%. Now they’re often under 80%. That difference is all profit for the insurance companies. No other common type of insurance has ratios that low.

The system is irreparably broken. It needs to be fixed. I don’t think the new law will fix it. But it is a step in the right direction, by at least setting a floor for insurance company medical loss ratios. There are other and better solutions. For the moment, none are politically palatable.

[SK in CV]

I didn’t have much of a disagreement with you until this:

[quote=Djshakes]
We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.[/quote]

It is not government mandates of coverage that drove insurance costs up so much over the last 15 years. That had almost nothing to do with it. Part of it was increased technology, higher cost procedures and drugs. Part of it has been the medical providers covering unpaid services, driving their prices up. An teensy weensy part of it has been litigation costs (though I’ve seen no evidence it’s any higer now than it was 20 years ago). Part of it has been more and more reliance on employer sponsored plans, and the continued shift to first dollar coverage (which you touched on, peripherally, whether you know it or not).

There is little that can be done to eliminate the increase in technology and higher cost procedures. We want solutions to our health care problems. We want to be cured. Research costs big bucks. MRI’s cost more than CT scans, which cost more than xrays. And MRI’s save lives that xrays can’t. So we either pay the additional costs for MRI’s (and future even more expensive imaging technologies) or we accept that xrays is all we can pay for and some people will die because of it. (None of this is to say that MRI’s aren’t ever over used. They are, because they are more profitable.)

The overuse of medical services, which in part is encouraged, or at least allowed, with first dollar coverage, can be fixed by shifting away from both employer sponsored insurance and at the same time, to old fashion deductible plans. Then everyone will choose what kind of plan they want, and directly feel the cost of those plans.

The reason I disagree with the quoted section, is that the free market doesn’t work. It has failed us miserably over the last 20 years. What has happened over the last 20 years is that insurance companies, despite competing with each other, have kept more and more of each premium dollar, not less. It isn’t all of the increases. But it is a significant piece. Medical loss ratios used to float above 90%. Now they’re often under 80%. That difference is all profit for the insurance companies. No other common type of insurance has ratios that low.

The system is irreparably broken. It needs to be fixed. I don’t think the new law will fix it. But it is a step in the right direction, by at least setting a floor for insurance company medical loss ratios. There are other and better solutions. For the moment, none are politically palatable.

[SK in CV]

I didn’t have much of a disagreement with you until this:

[quote=Djshakes]
We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.[/quote]

It is not government mandates of coverage that drove insurance costs up so much over the last 15 years. That had almost nothing to do with it. Part of it was increased technology, higher cost procedures and drugs. Part of it has been the medical providers covering unpaid services, driving their prices up. An teensy weensy part of it has been litigation costs (though I’ve seen no evidence it’s any higer now than it was 20 years ago). Part of it has been more and more reliance on employer sponsored plans, and the continued shift to first dollar coverage (which you touched on, peripherally, whether you know it or not).

There is little that can be done to eliminate the increase in technology and higher cost procedures. We want solutions to our health care problems. We want to be cured. Research costs big bucks. MRI’s cost more than CT scans, which cost more than xrays. And MRI’s save lives that xrays can’t. So we either pay the additional costs for MRI’s (and future even more expensive imaging technologies) or we accept that xrays is all we can pay for and some people will die because of it. (None of this is to say that MRI’s aren’t ever over used. They are, because they are more profitable.)

The overuse of medical services, which in part is encouraged, or at least allowed, with first dollar coverage, can be fixed by shifting away from both employer sponsored insurance and at the same time, to old fashion deductible plans. Then everyone will choose what kind of plan they want, and directly feel the cost of those plans.

The reason I disagree with the quoted section, is that the free market doesn’t work. It has failed us miserably over the last 20 years. What has happened over the last 20 years is that insurance companies, despite competing with each other, have kept more and more of each premium dollar, not less. It isn’t all of the increases. But it is a significant piece. Medical loss ratios used to float above 90%. Now they’re often under 80%. That difference is all profit for the insurance companies. No other common type of insurance has ratios that low.

The system is irreparably broken. It needs to be fixed. I don’t think the new law will fix it. But it is a step in the right direction, by at least setting a floor for insurance company medical loss ratios. There are other and better solutions. For the moment, none are politically palatable.

[SK in CV]

The beginning of a snow ball?
Quoting myself from earlier in this thread:

[quote=SK in CV]
Another party that may have some interesting input is the office of the US Trustee, as they did in this case. I spent a lot of time working in the bankruptcy system in the early 90’s, and their aggressiveness varies dramatically from district to district. But there will be cases where they have standing. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re the ones that get the snow ball rolling. Bankruptcy judges tend to give them more respect than either debtors or creditors. And there is nothing more dangerous than a pissed off bankruptcy judge.[/quote]

c/o Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

This time, a case in Connecticut, where a lender seems to have some severe conflicts as to when documents were created, possible purjury, and the Office of the US Trustee is getting involved with a Rule 2004 exam.

For those not familiar, the US Trustee is an office controlled by the DOJ, in charge of administering and overseeing some functions within the bankruptcy system. Among other things, they appoint trustees and examiners (with court approval). They have standing in every bankrupcty case, and the bankrupcty court generally give them great deference.

Their involvement in bankruptcy cases varies from almost invisible to heavily involved at every stage. In this case, the US Trustee seems to have called bullshit on a lenders submittal of what appears to be either wrongly dated, recreated, or totally falsified documents.

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and
has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche….Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court… Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016…

This is bad news for lenders. It is more than a few isolated incidents now. It seems that for at least a few years before the shit hit the fan, originators, lenders, and subsequent note buyers (usually securitized mortgage trusts) totally ignored rules, regulations, in some cases, laws, and almost always the trust agreements and loan servicing agreements governing the handling, recording and endorsements of original loan documents.

If the involvement of the heavily independent office of the US Trustee continues, it may just bring the loan securitization industry down.

[SK in CV]

The beginning of a snow ball?
Quoting myself from earlier in this thread:

[quote=SK in CV]
Another party that may have some interesting input is the office of the US Trustee, as they did in this case. I spent a lot of time working in the bankruptcy system in the early 90’s, and their aggressiveness varies dramatically from district to district. But there will be cases where they have standing. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re the ones that get the snow ball rolling. Bankruptcy judges tend to give them more respect than either debtors or creditors. And there is nothing more dangerous than a pissed off bankruptcy judge.[/quote]

c/o Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

This time, a case in Connecticut, where a lender seems to have some severe conflicts as to when documents were created, possible purjury, and the Office of the US Trustee is getting involved with a Rule 2004 exam.

For those not familiar, the US Trustee is an office controlled by the DOJ, in charge of administering and overseeing some functions within the bankruptcy system. Among other things, they appoint trustees and examiners (with court approval). They have standing in every bankrupcty case, and the bankrupcty court generally give them great deference.

Their involvement in bankruptcy cases varies from almost invisible to heavily involved at every stage. In this case, the US Trustee seems to have called bullshit on a lenders submittal of what appears to be either wrongly dated, recreated, or totally falsified documents.

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and
has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche….Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court… Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016…

This is bad news for lenders. It is more than a few isolated incidents now. It seems that for at least a few years before the shit hit the fan, originators, lenders, and subsequent note buyers (usually securitized mortgage trusts) totally ignored rules, regulations, in some cases, laws, and almost always the trust agreements and loan servicing agreements governing the handling, recording and endorsements of original loan documents.

If the involvement of the heavily independent office of the US Trustee continues, it may just bring the loan securitization industry down.

[SK in CV]

The beginning of a snow ball?
Quoting myself from earlier in this thread:

[quote=SK in CV]
Another party that may have some interesting input is the office of the US Trustee, as they did in this case. I spent a lot of time working in the bankruptcy system in the early 90’s, and their aggressiveness varies dramatically from district to district. But there will be cases where they have standing. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re the ones that get the snow ball rolling. Bankruptcy judges tend to give them more respect than either debtors or creditors. And there is nothing more dangerous than a pissed off bankruptcy judge.[/quote]

c/o Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

This time, a case in Connecticut, where a lender seems to have some severe conflicts as to when documents were created, possible purjury, and the Office of the US Trustee is getting involved with a Rule 2004 exam.

For those not familiar, the US Trustee is an office controlled by the DOJ, in charge of administering and overseeing some functions within the bankruptcy system. Among other things, they appoint trustees and examiners (with court approval). They have standing in every bankrupcty case, and the bankrupcty court generally give them great deference.

Their involvement in bankruptcy cases varies from almost invisible to heavily involved at every stage. In this case, the US Trustee seems to have called bullshit on a lenders submittal of what appears to be either wrongly dated, recreated, or totally falsified documents.

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and
has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche….Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court… Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016…

This is bad news for lenders. It is more than a few isolated incidents now. It seems that for at least a few years before the shit hit the fan, originators, lenders, and subsequent note buyers (usually securitized mortgage trusts) totally ignored rules, regulations, in some cases, laws, and almost always the trust agreements and loan servicing agreements governing the handling, recording and endorsements of original loan documents.

If the involvement of the heavily independent office of the US Trustee continues, it may just bring the loan securitization industry down.

[SK in CV]

The beginning of a snow ball?
Quoting myself from earlier in this thread:

[quote=SK in CV]
Another party that may have some interesting input is the office of the US Trustee, as they did in this case. I spent a lot of time working in the bankruptcy system in the early 90’s, and their aggressiveness varies dramatically from district to district. But there will be cases where they have standing. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re the ones that get the snow ball rolling. Bankruptcy judges tend to give them more respect than either debtors or creditors. And there is nothing more dangerous than a pissed off bankruptcy judge.[/quote]

c/o Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

This time, a case in Connecticut, where a lender seems to have some severe conflicts as to when documents were created, possible purjury, and the Office of the US Trustee is getting involved with a Rule 2004 exam.

For those not familiar, the US Trustee is an office controlled by the DOJ, in charge of administering and overseeing some functions within the bankruptcy system. Among other things, they appoint trustees and examiners (with court approval). They have standing in every bankrupcty case, and the bankrupcty court generally give them great deference.

Their involvement in bankruptcy cases varies from almost invisible to heavily involved at every stage. In this case, the US Trustee seems to have called bullshit on a lenders submittal of what appears to be either wrongly dated, recreated, or totally falsified documents.

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and
has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche….Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court… Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016…

This is bad news for lenders. It is more than a few isolated incidents now. It seems that for at least a few years before the shit hit the fan, originators, lenders, and subsequent note buyers (usually securitized mortgage trusts) totally ignored rules, regulations, in some cases, laws, and almost always the trust agreements and loan servicing agreements governing the handling, recording and endorsements of original loan documents.

If the involvement of the heavily independent office of the US Trustee continues, it may just bring the loan securitization industry down.

[SK in CV]

The beginning of a snow ball?
Quoting myself from earlier in this thread:

[quote=SK in CV]
Another party that may have some interesting input is the office of the US Trustee, as they did in this case. I spent a lot of time working in the bankruptcy system in the early 90’s, and their aggressiveness varies dramatically from district to district. But there will be cases where they have standing. And it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re the ones that get the snow ball rolling. Bankruptcy judges tend to give them more respect than either debtors or creditors. And there is nothing more dangerous than a pissed off bankruptcy judge.[/quote]

c/o Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

This time, a case in Connecticut, where a lender seems to have some severe conflicts as to when documents were created, possible purjury, and the Office of the US Trustee is getting involved with a Rule 2004 exam.

For those not familiar, the US Trustee is an office controlled by the DOJ, in charge of administering and overseeing some functions within the bankruptcy system. Among other things, they appoint trustees and examiners (with court approval). They have standing in every bankrupcty case, and the bankrupcty court generally give them great deference.

Their involvement in bankruptcy cases varies from almost invisible to heavily involved at every stage. In this case, the US Trustee seems to have called bullshit on a lenders submittal of what appears to be either wrongly dated, recreated, or totally falsified documents.

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and
has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche….Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court… Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016…

This is bad news for lenders. It is more than a few isolated incidents now. It seems that for at least a few years before the shit hit the fan, originators, lenders, and subsequent note buyers (usually securitized mortgage trusts) totally ignored rules, regulations, in some cases, laws, and almost always the trust agreements and loan servicing agreements governing the handling, recording and endorsements of original loan documents.

If the involvement of the heavily independent office of the US Trustee continues, it may just bring the loan securitization industry down.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Oh, BTW, last night, Obama admitted the bill has flaws. Flaws that could have been discussed. But obviously the 100 senators didn’t read or didn’t care. Same with the Reps.[/quote]

Right. A flaw he has long acknowledged. One that was discussed. One insisted on by Republicans, in order to reduce the cost of the bill. Most laws aren’t perfect. They’re a product of negotiation where neither side gets exactly what they want. If every bill had to be perfect, none would ever get passed.

Arguing that an acknowledged flaw is proof that the bill wasn’t read is just a stupid argument.
Can you name a particular Senator or Rep who has actually claimed that they didn’t read the bill?

[Author]

Posts